It's a principle of international relations that when the President meets with heads of state, it makes them more powerful and gives them a gravitas (although I hate that word) that they might not deserve. Meeting with Ahmadinejad would give Ahmadinejad greater power within his country and region. We prefer to see him isolated and less powerful to affect what happens in his region. Actually meeting with him would cause him to be seen as a serious power broker, which he actually isn't. (In Iran, more power is vested in the religious leaders who *actually* have final say.)
This is doubly true in cultures where dialogue is seen as weakness... such as it is in the Middle East.
For example,
after Nancy Pelosi (third in line for POTUS) met with Syria's Assad, he then spent some time shutting down dissidents, because it was believed that he could:
Quote:
|
Even Syrians outside the inner circle of activists seem shaken by the conviction, shortly after Ms. Pelosi’s return to Washington, of Syria’s best-known human-rights lawyer, Anwar al-Bunni. Mr. al-Bunni was convicted of “spreading information that could weaken national morale” and “joining an international organization without proper authorization,” for which he was given a five-year prison sentence.
|
This principle is not well understood, and so when Obama said in a debate that he would meet with certain foreign leaders without any preconditions, it was a gaffe. Since then the Obama campaign has changed that to "negotiate" not "meet" but since people don't really grasp the principle behind it, it remains debate fodder. There's nothing wrong with negotiating with such leaders, but the negotiation happens at the State Dept level, and with brokers, not the actual POTUS. I remain convinced that Obama is merely covering up the gaffe at this point, and if he becomes Pres, the folks at State will explain the principle and business will continue as usual.